Arguing Class Actions: Quality vs. Quantity—The Debate Over Reasonable Attorney Fees
Arguing Class Actions is a monthly column by Adam J. Levitt for the National Law Journal.
September 09, 2024 at 06:00 AM
7 minute read
Last year, U.S. District Judge Brian C. Wimes of the Western District of Missouri approved a $500 million settlement in the T-Mobile data breach litigation, finding that the "historic" settlement extended "extraordinary" relief to the class. In re T-Mobile Customer Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 21-MD-3019 (W.D. Mo. June 29, 2023). On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed—and the appellant objectors did not even dispute—that class counsel had "represented the class well" and "obtained a significant result." In re T-Mobile Customer Data Breach Litigation, Nos. 23-2744 and 23-2798 (8th Cir. July 29, 2024). Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit overturned the $78 million fee award, deeming it a "windfall," because class counsel had not, in its view, logged a sufficient number of hours to justify a roughly 16% fee.
The Eighth Circuit offered two main reasons for its decision: first, that many attorneys will still take these cases even with a lowered percentage, and second, that awarding high multipliers early in a case could encourage counsel to settle early and move on to the next case. Id. at *6-7. The flaw in both of those arguments is that it assumes the historic result was inevitable and that any lawyer would have achieved the same. It is incorrect to assume that lawyers are fungible, or that a large settlement will be available early in the case regardless of the skill of the attorneys involved. Corporate defendants shelling out thousands of dollars per hour believe that paying for top talent will get them the best result, even though they could find others to take their case at much lower rates. One of the main reasons any client chooses a contingent fee arrangement, in addition to shifting the downside risk from client to lawyer, is that the attorney gets paid according to the quality of the results, and, therefore, better aligns the incentives between attorney and client. Thus, trial courts should be afforded the deference and focus primarily on the result achieved for the client (here, the class), just as in any other contingent arrangement.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Exchange’s ‘Meteoric Rise’ Leads to Nationwide Class Action Trend
4 minute read'The Tobacco Industry of This Decade': Slew of Class Actions Accuse DraftKings of Creating Addicts
5 minute readPentagon Settles Suit Seeking to Clear Records of Service Members Discharged for Being LGBTQ
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Sides With Retail Display Company in Patent Dispute Against Campbell Soup, Grocery Stores
- 2Is It Time for Large UK Law Firms to Begin Taking Private Equity Investment?
- 3Federal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Launch Defensive Measure
- 4Class Action Litigator Tapped to Lead Shook, Hardy & Bacon's Houston Office
- 5Arizona Supreme Court Presses Pause on KPMG's Bid to Deliver Legal Services
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250